Politics As Propaganda
In the vast majority of cases politics can generally be considered a useless endeavor. History has proven time and again that any political solution comes about only as a result of a de facto change in the culture. This means that by the time a political solution can be implemented society has either mostly resolved the problem on its own, or is far enough in resolving it that a political solution is redundant. This is not to say however that there is not a very important use for politics. When employed properly politics can be used as an effective propaganda tool. The objective then for any Liberal who employs politics as a tool is not to win political office, but to frame a debate. The Liberal propagandist is able to both offer outside the system solutions, and to advocate preference for outside the system solutions from inside the system. This is such a radical concept to most people that it causes individuals to stand up and take note. 3 tier platform Any Liberal platform should consist of three tiers. The first tier is the "non-voting" or "your still voting?" platform. An individual who fundamentally challenges the right of 50.01% to rule over and dictate the lives of the other 49.99% already re-frames the debate. Further by pointing to real solid evidence that what voters want doesn't matter and that "If they can't trick you into voting for it, they will push their agenda forward anyway." the propagandist further de-legitimizes the system. It however is not enough to de-legitimize the system. Instead the propagandist must go one step further and provide viable alternatives to acting inside the system. If you do not offer viable alternatives you are not only wasting your time telling people things they already know, you are not contributing to the over all conversation. Without alternatives the propagandist will only create resentment against Liberty. Liberty is not about de-empowering people, it is about empowering them. The second tier is centered around acting from principles. This can be summed up as the "why" principle. Challenge the opposition not only about their particular policies, but additionally why they think that policy will work. "Why do you believe X?" "Why do you believe Y policy will work?" "What evidence do you have that Y works?" "Why is Z better than B decentralized solution?" "Why? why? why? What evidence? What evidence? What evidence?". "Here is my solution and this is the ethical principle which suggests it." Third tier act with boldness. Earnest Hancock tells the story of Cody Wilson at the Texas Bitcoin Conference. An advocate for Bitcoin regulation seeking to tar Dark Wallet as evil. He accused Dark Wallet as 'Being a tool for money laundering'. Rather than scare Cody Wilson he took the radical position 'Yes Dark Wallet is a tool for money laundering, of course.'. In the mind of the accuser he would confront Cody Wilson and back him slowly into a corner. Instead Cody Wilson acted with boldness and explicitly and unapologetically declared 'Yes this is intended to launder money, of course. What's the problem?' . This changes the conversation from "Money laundering is bad." to "Who's business is it when I spend money?". Transition from a conversation about fear to a conversation about money as freedom of speech. By taking bold positions without being apologetic the political propagandist is able to challenge the standard narrative. The opposition wants the political propagandist to react and not to act. By acting and doing so in such as way as to challenge the opposition they must react. The political propagandist should think beyond the traditional box to include now and non-standard tactics and strategy. For example, beyond the standard soundbite interviews/debates is the option to create and preform podcasts. This allows the propagandist to more directly deliver the message of freedom and not voting to the intended audience. The political propagandist is a "Professor" of liberty and it is up to each professor to determine how they will structure their teaching hospital. Does the professor create a series of shows which teach on a single topic? Does the professor create a call in show where they can engage in the Socratic dialog with their students. Is it a combination? Is it something else entirely? Podcasts should be mid to high quality so as to provide a smooth listening experience to the audience. For tips on how to achieve this with minimum cost go to www.creamyradioaudio.com. Most platforms are dictated by people other than the propagandist. This is a way for the propagandist to design and determine the message. The more radical someone is the more ones words will be taken out of context, the more listener audience will grow to get context. There will be some who decide to use their platform in a more confrontational manner. These individuals will choose not only to advocate breaking the law, or breaking "minor" laws. They will choose instead to practice more radical demonstrations such as unlicensed open carry, openly carrying a marijuana plant, etc. They may even choose to openly carry fake drugs or weapons. These individual should make themselves aware of what is going to happen before they take action. This is not an attempt to discourage such tactics, it is advocating awareness. This is both so that one knows the risk, as well as being able to plan strategy. It is never advisable to be placed in a situation where you must react. Always seek to be the actor and make others react. A Few Talking Points *End the Fed by opting out of the War Dollar. *Taxes are holding Peter at gun point to give money to Paul, without even bothering to ask if Peter would help Paul. *Taxes are enslaving the the newly born and the unborn. Does it feel good to be a slave? Does it feel good that your children are slaves? *Schools are State Indoctrination camps. The State demands at gunpoint kids and young adults be sent to State approved indoctrination centers. The State is then able to promote its own agenda and message unchallanged into young impressionable minds. The State chooses curricula which ignores any mistake made by The State, and claims credit for everything good that happens, while blaming others for everything bad. "The Victor writes history." *The gun control debate is over with the advent of 3D printing and "The Liberator". It is no longer a debate over gun control which is now impossible, it is now a conversation about prevention and gun safety. *Copying is not theft. Patten's and Copyright are not property as much as they want people to think so by calling it "intellectual property". *Opt out of murdering children by opting out of the dollar and opting into Crypto-Currencies. *Put down the gun and find peaceful solutions. *You know a politician is lying when they open their mouth. *Do not vote for anyone. That includes me. *It must be nice to be able to vote for you slave owner? Each time you vote your hoping that this master isn't going to beat you as bad as the other master. *Opt out of X and into Y. *Freedom is scary... You might succeed. *Can we all just agree to stop pointing guns in peoples faces? *Anti-discrimination laws are bad. I want bigots to be public about their bigotry. I want to build these people a train to the highest mountain, and given them public forums to speak. I want them to be bold and loud about their hate. I want to know exactly who not to work for, and who not to do business with. Be loud bigots, be bold, speak without fear. *Your still voting? Why? *Politics is a circus, enjoy the show. *I hope when people go to political rallies, watch political debates, or listen to political shows they are doing it to enjoy the circus. *I'm sorry were you just advocating pointing a gun in someones face? *If voting really worked then why are things so screwed up? * 50.01% holding a gun on 49.99% is called mob violence. *If they can't keep drugs out of school... or even prisons for that matter how does anyone expect to keep them off the street. *The drug war is the greatest hoax ever pulled on any people. *State policy "You will be beaten until morale improves". *Why shouldn't prostitution be legal. Prostitutes are far more honest then politicians. *Because it's the law is no more an excuse than "I was just following orders". *Peter helping Paul is called charity. Tim robbing Peter to give that money to Paul is called theft. This is not by any means an exhaustive list of talking points. Each propagandist should customize their list based on what is going to be most effective. Answers should made as short as possible with references to the propagandists podcast, or website. Even expansion of these points on shows or websites should be short simple, and easy to follow. ie. If one is asked in a debate "Do you support legalizing pot?" respond "Laws can't even keep drugs out of prison.". "Do you support felons being able to carry guns?" "How can I stop them when they can just print a gun?". "Do you support anti-discrimination laws?" "Why would I want to work for a bigot or buy their products?". "Do you support welfare?" "I support anything that reduces the governments ability to blow up children.". Be radical, be bold, be short. While politicians drone on stretching out as much of their time as possible to get camera time, the audience will appreciate and be receptive to unambiguous short answers. While politicians are talking in circles people will remember boldness and clarity of position.